Obama giving speech on gun control in Minneapolis, Minn.

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by eXia7
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I referenced it in terms that means, every American should express their freedoms to own a firearm, instead of talking about saving freedoms on the internet, they could buy a firearm and add to the growing number of Americans who own them already.

The patriotic part of my comment comes into play when you express your freedoms. I encourage people to purchase a firearm, and learn how to use it. I didn't say you couldn't be patriotic if you didn't own one. But it is a good way to send a message I believe.

or.. you could stand around and hold a sign, your choice.


I own guns, but prefer to vote or protest rather than shoot or threaten people? Just saying ...on the hierarchy of political participation...a gun would seem the least democratic?



Yes it is....and as history will show governments and tyrants have been very undemocratic with the use of weapons on their own people.




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 





Yes it is....and as history will show governments and tyrants have been very undemocratic with the use of weapons on their own people.


We have all seen how effective the Us government has been using their weapons on people they don't like, and they think they will never turn those weapons on us?

They already have.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Amendment and natural right to bear “arms” remains strong and untainted, but our willingness to call them legal “firearms” makes them able to be regulated and eventually confiscated by government.
It is the clasic battle between lawful vs legal. And it is this voluntary acceptance of Federal contract (license) that puts your lawful guns (arms) at risk as legal “firearms”, and nothing else.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   


One side is talking about better background checks and closing the gun show loophole... The other is screaming Tyranny, Nazi's..."1776 will commence again!!!"...gotta love AJ...
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The one side that is so innocently talking about background checks and gun show loopholes has also passed an extreme gun bill that includes confiscation, I think,. It was done in the dark under "emergency powers
when no emergency was present, and so poorly written that they didn't even exempt law enforcement by some accounts. The reason that Cuomo used emergency powers provisions was he didn't want any debate or time to review what they wanted to do.Do they really think what they did in New York went unnoticed in the rest of the country?

It's not the usual suspects screaming Nazi's, Tyranny, and 1776 will happen again that concern me so much, AJ has been screaming that for at least a decade or two now. It's hearing people talk about it after church, having Sunday diner, in line to pay bills, outside on smoke breaks, and places where I've never heard people talking about that stuff.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


More to the point...Any Federal Gun Ban would need to originate with the GOP dominated house? The same house that is so far right they tried to deny Hurricaine relief to NY and NJ...and Medical assistance funds to first responders from 9-11. How do you think that will go?

So you agree.. we are less "safe" after the government intervenes?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
and the gun manufactureres rake it in, laughing all the way to the bank..its pretty amusing to watch everybody freak out over this..the us is completley fear driven, anyone think the guns are going to be taken is not clued into reality



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

Are you willfully ignorant, crazy, or a shill?

Because you're literally making claims contrary to a video I had you post recently. A video you were trying to use as evidence! Do you see now why I asked you to find that video instead of posting it myself?

You're just saying words that are rhetorically charged that aren't based on any facts whatsoever, and the fact you do use are so misconstrued it's laughable.
No one should listen to anything you say.

edit on 5-2-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Minneapolis MN huh??

I wonder why he didn't give the speech in Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, or Camden, NJ?

He could tout their successes with strict gun control.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3dman7
Once upon a time, dynamite was a commonly purchased and used tool too. You could buy it in any hardware store.

Shouldn't we still be able to buy dynamite whenever we feel like it? How did we ever let it come to this?


When was dynamite ownership a protected right under the US Constitution?

My memory is a lil fuzzy.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Thats not going to work....not that I am being nagative. The areas in our country with these high rates of killings and violence have for years now been the close subject of every governmemt program, cultural studies beyound count, psychological evaluation and every effort to understand and support that the mind can fathom and the violence is as bad as its always been.

Now they have decided that the suburban and country gun shows are the problem.
edit on 4-2-2013 by Logarock because: n


Tackling mental health and social issues that had been, and ARE the causes of violence,of innocent dead men, women and children around the world, instead of tackling the superficial tools, may seem daunting.

How can the society's leaders and the intelligentsia, along with security forces be there 24/7 to watch over and protect every single 300 million citizens? From such perspectives, one would give up without further thought and just take away the tools and hope that it will be the solution.

But it never was or had been the solution. Look at Chicago - murder rates still climbs even though guns were banned and the 2nd amendment spat upon, with criminals cheerfully robbing and killing disarmed citizens as the disarmed law abidding citizens are easy meat.

End trafficking of arms or stop its manufacture are not the solution either, simply because it is NOT difficult to produce a self made gun or rockets. All over the world, such techniques had been employed, espacially by criminals to get access to guns. Theft and corruption of arms depot of the best weapons is not uncommon even in first world nations.

There are many other tools if one is incline to slaughter innocent people. Even a matchstick in a well gassed up apartment can destroy entire floors. The ROOT problem is humans, not tools.

And the way to deal with it is from 'down up' approach - beginning with the building block of all societies - the family unit. It is near impossible for a 'top down' approach, as mentioned earlier, but using the family unit - family, neighbours, relatives, friends, community leaders, etc to watch out for signs of anti-social behavior will be the first line of defence in the fight to save lives.

When such signs are detected, each human nearest to him by blood or by community link, to offer help - sharing and discussions with many others on their problems. Then move up to the next phase if it does not work and the problem human is stubborn - seek professional help.

Through many other gradual increments of help using well research data and medical advice to the problem human, we mankind may have averted potential tragedies and not only save innocent lives, but the problem human's life as well, because if he is healed, he will become a contributing member to society. He too is only a fellow human, as long as he had not gone loco, hurt and harmed innocents.

Apathy and ignoring problem issues, sweeping them under the carpet must end. Let not the innocent deads' deaths be in vain. Too many precious lives had been lost through such societal negligences, by each and every member of society. Freedom within civilisation is a power and comes with responsibilities from EACH member to oneself and to others within the community, beginning at the family unit and upwards.

All it takes is enlightened planning and leadership direction from the leaders to resolve the root problem. But I guess it is far more easier for leaders to take away guns, spit on the 2nd amendment, then to do what is right to save lives.
edit on 5-2-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yeah full letter:


While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.




We should know by now when they say "criminals" in a context like this that they sound like british military 1776. Anyone that owns one is a criminal. Anyone taking up arms under the 2nd is a criminal. Well just look at the HLS "memo" they put out during the first term.


You do realize in your revolutionary - 1776 - we don't fear monger! - analogy.... you just cast President Reagan as the Tyrant King George? That's his letter to congress.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Wow...were you just explaining that the right wing doesn't fear mongering?


Originally posted by neo96

We have all seen how effective the Us government has been using their weapons on people they don't like, and they think they will never turn those weapons on us?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jefwane
 


Cuomo and NY?...That is NY, not the fed...So "State's Rights" are bad now? ...The Fed. needs to overturn it?...



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It looks the Great and Powerful "O" is going to take guns away from EVERYONE but law enforcement based upon the photo op with all of those LEOs present. Is this the declaration of war that everyone was expecting?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Yeah I wonder who is being lazy,ignorant,shills

First time machine guns was banned was in 1934 the second time machine guns were banned was 1968 the third time they were banned 1986, the fourth time they were banned was 94 and here were are once again ban all those bad guns.

But the 90s banned was not about machine guns since they were already banned three times that ban was about accessories that made them look scary.

Of course they can't use the machine gun term, they use "assault weapons" that are clearly not weapons of war since they were never designed for it.
edit on 5-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yule C Mann
It looks the Great and Powerful "O" is going to take guns away from EVERYONE but law enforcement based upon the photo op with all of those LEOs present. Is this the declaration of war that everyone was expecting?


He can't. He doesn't even have the votes in his own party to pass the Feinstein bill.

It's just political posturing, nothing more.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Cuomo and NY?...That is NY, not the fed...So "State's Rights" are bad now? ...The Fed. needs to overturn it?...


Nice try to deflect there. New Yorkers absolutely should have first say in if they agree with this law or not.

I personally believe the NY law doesn't meet the constitutional standard of "shall not be infringed", and look forward to it being challenged in both the state and US Supreme Court, particularly post McDonald v Chicago. However, one of the reasons that I believe that NY is a test ground for the gun grabbers is the lack of the right to keep and bear arms in its bill of rights, article XII in the NY constitution is solely about the militia. Apparently New York does not, as a state, recognize an individual right to bear arms so its citizens have only the US constitutional protections to fall back on so I imagine it will be decided at a federal level, hopefully before one of the current conservatives retires, but I'm not so sure that will even matter because this nominally conservative court really likes giving government more power.

But the battle falls first to the people of New York. They must punish both their governor and any legislator who voted for this, particularly any GOP legislator who voted for it, in the next available election. The rest of us should look to New York as a blueprint for what the gun grabbers would like to do nationally, and prepare accordingly. When you hear people talk about "reasonable" and "common sense" "gun safety laws", the proper response to them is "you mean like they did in New York?".

Also, I've noticed there has been very little national attention to the NY gun laws passed the evening before the Obama "executive action" items were announced. I don't believe this is unintentional in its timing. The hope, I think was for the "reasonableness" in the Obama "EOs" to override any concerns over the black letter law passed in NY. I'm glad we have ATS and other alternatives to the MSM discussing the NY gun law, and are able to get the word out via social media and alternative news sites so we can let our associates know not to listen to the words coming out of gun grabbing politicians mouths but to look at their actions, made under emergency powers done in the dark of night, for what their national goals are.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Common sense is a national database for background checks.

A yes/no answer. "Can __________ legally purchase a firearm". That is common sense.

"can________ who lives at _________ purchase__________ with the serial number _______" is not common sense. It is a national gun registry and it leads to confiscation.

It doesn't take common sense to realize that



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


And how do we get criminals to comply with that?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yeah full letter:


While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.




We should know by now when they say "criminals" in a context like this that they sound like british military 1776. Anyone that owns one is a criminal. Anyone taking up arms under the 2nd is a criminal. Well just look at the HLS "memo" they put out during the first term.


You do realize in your revolutionary - 1776 - we don't fear monger! - analogy.... you just cast President Reagan as the Tyrant King George? That's his letter to congress.


I dont come in here to defend Reagan or anyone really.

I do in fact believe that Reagan, I have heard it said, appointed more anti gun federal judges than any other potus in history. That it was Reagan appointed judges that were backing Clinton era gun grabbers.

Whatever the case when it comes to the 2nd amendment supporters may as well consider themselves on their own and fight accordingly.





top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join